(Rav): If Reuven stole something from Shimon, and sold it to Levi, and it became known that Reuven stole it, the claim is against the first one. (Shimon can demand payment only from Reuven. Levi need not return the stolen object for free.)

(R. Yochanan): The claim is against the second one (Shimon can demand the stolen object from Levi for free).

(Rav Yosef): They do not argue. If Levi bought it before Shimon despaired, Shimon can demand the stolen object from Levi for free. If Levi bought it after Shimon despaired, Levi need not return it for free;

Both of them hold like Rav Chisda;

(Rav Chisda): If Shimon stole from Yehudah, Yehudah did not despair of getting it back, and Levi came and ate it, also Levi stole from Yehudah, Yehudah may collect from either one he wants.)

Question (Abaye): They argue about gifts to a Kohen, and this is like before despair!

(Mishnah): If David told Moshe 'sell to me your cow's innards (which includes the stomach, one of the Matanos (gifts given to a Kohen when a Chulin animal is slaughtered))', David must give the stomach to a Kohen, and he pays Moshe the full price of the innards;

If he paid by weight, David must give the stomach to a Kohen, and he demands compensation from Moshe.

(Rav): This is only if David weighed the meat himself. If Moshe weighed it, (David need not give the Kohen for free;) the Kohen's (only) claim is from Moshe.

Answer: No, Rav means that the Kohen may demand the stomach from David for free, or he may even claim from Moshe.

One might have thought that Matanos cannot be stolen (wherever they are, they belong to the Kohen, the only claim is against David). Rav teaches that this is not so.

Question: According to Abaye, what do Rav and R. Yochanan argue about?

Answer: They argue about Rav Chisda's law.

(Rav Zvid): Rav and R. Yochanan argue when Shimon despaired after Levi bought it;

R. Yochanan holds that one (e.g. a buyer) acquires through Shinuy Reshus (change of ownership) after the owner despaired, but not through despair after Shinuy Reshus;

Rav holds that in either case, he acquires.

(Rav Papa): All agree that Shimon gets the stolen object back for free (if he never despaired). They argue about whether or not an enactment was made for buyers;

Rav said 'the claim is against the first one', i.e. Levi (the buyer) can demand payment only from Reuven (the thief).

R. Yochanan said 'the claim is against the second one' - an enactment was made that if Levi prefers, he may demand payment from Shimon (who may then claim from Reuven).

Question: Does Rav really hold that no enactment was made for buyers?!

Chanan Bisha stole a garment and sold it. Rav Huna (Rav's Talmid) told the owner to redeem it from the buyer (i.e. to pay for it).

Answer: The case of Chanan Bisha is different. Since the buyer cannot receive his money from him, it is as if the thief was not found.

(Rava): No enactment was made for one who bought from a known thief.

Question: Chanan Bisha was a known thief, and an enactment was made for one who bought from him!

Answer: He was known to be evil (Bisha), but not necessarily to be a thief.

If a thief stole and paid up a loan, or a debt for goods received, no enactment was made;

This is because the money or goods were not given due to the stolen object.

If the thief gave the stolen object for collateral, if it was worth 200 for a loan of 100, an enactment was made;

(Ameimar): If it was worth the same as the loan, no enactment was made.

(Mar Zutra): Also in this case an enactment was made.

If a stolen object was sold for its value, an enactment was made.

(Rav Sheshes): If it was sold for twice its value, no enactment was made;

(Rava): Also in this case an enactment was made;

The Halachah is, an enactment was made in all cases, except for when it was given to pay a loan or debt.

Ploni owed four Zuz to Avimi bar Gazi, Ravina's father- in-law. Ploni stole a garment and gave it to Avimi, who then lent him four more Zuz. The theft became known.

Ravina: Regarding the first four Zuz, no enactment was made when it was given to pay a loan or debt (Avimi does not get them from the owner);

Avimi can demand the last four Zuz (before returning the garment). The garment was collateral for the second loan.

Question (Rav Kohen): Perhaps the garment was payment for the first loan, and not collateral for the second, just like the first loan was without collateral!

(R. Avahu): The Halachah follows Rav Kohen.

Reuven stole Yehudah's Sefer and sold it to Shimon for 80 Zuz, who then sold it to Levi for 120 Zuz. It became known that Reuven stole it.

Abaye: Yehudah pays Levi 80 Zuz, and gets his Sefer. Shimon pays 40 Zuz to Levi.

Question (Rava): An enactment was made for one who buys from a thief (to get everything he paid before returning the stolen object), all the more so an enactment was made for one who bought from one who bought from a thief!

(Rava): Rather, Yehudah pays Levi 120 Zuz, and gets his Sefer; Yehudah gets 40 from Shimon (Shimon's profit) and 80 Zuz from the thief.

(Mishnah): If Levi was carrying a barrel of wine, and Yehudah was carrying a jug of honey, and Yehudah's barrel cracked, and Levi spilled out his wine and saved the honey, he is paid only like a worker (he is not compensated for the wine he sacrificed);

If Levi said 'I will save your honey and you will pay for my wine', Yehudah must give him.

A flooding river overcame the donkeys of Reuven and Shimon, and Reuven neglected his own donkey (worth 100) to save Shimon's (worth 200), he is paid only like a worker (he is not compensated for the loss of his donkey).

If he said 'I will save yours and you will pay for mine', Shimon must pay him.

(Gemara) Question: Why does he get only like a worker? The honey was going to be lost, it is like Hefker!

(Beraisa #1): If a man was carrying jugs of wine and oil, and saw that they were breaking, he may not make the wine and oil Terumah to exempt what he has in his house. If he did, it is invalid.

Answer: The Mishnah discusses a case like R. Yirmiyah said (below), there is a basket around the barrel (holding the pieces of the barrel in place. The honey would have dripped out slowly. It could have been saved.)

Question: In Beraisa #1, why is the Terumah invalid?

(Beraisa #2): If Reuven was carrying coins, and an extortionist approached him, Reuven may not redeem the Kedushah of coins in his house onto the coins he is carrying. If he did so, it takes effect.

Answer: There, the case is that he can save them from the extortionist.

Question: If so, he should be allowed to redeem l'Chatchilah!

Answer: He can save only with difficulty.

Question: Is it really true that whenever a loss is impending, he may not endow (the money or Peros) with Kedushah?

(Beraisa): If a Levi had 10 barrels of Tamei Ma'aser Rishon (of wine) that was Tevel (Terumas Ma'aser had not been separated from it), and one broke or was uncovered (one may not drink it, lest a snake left venom in it), he may declare it to be Terumas Ma'aser on the other nine;

Regarding oil he may not do so, for this causes a loss to the Kohen (he could have benefited from burning Tamei oil of Terumas Ma'aser).

Answer (R. Yirmiyah): There is a basket around the barrel. (The wine or oil could have been saved, therefore he may declare wine to be Terumas Ma'aser, and even regarding oil it takes effect.)

Question: Granted, if the barrel broke, the wine may be gathered. But if it was uncovered, what may it be used for? (Perhaps there is venom in it! Why may he make it Terumas Ma'aser?)

Suggestion: He may sprinkle it to scent the house.

Rejection (Beraisa): Exposed wine may not be poured in the Reshus ha'Rabim, used to knead mud, sprinkled on the floor, or fed to an animal.

Answer: After straining it, it may be used, according to R. Nechemyah;

(Beraisa): We are concerned for exposure of dregs on a strainer through which the wine filters down (into a bottom Kli);

R. Nechemyah says, this is only if the bottom Kli is exposed. We are not concerned if the top Kli is exposed, because snake's venom floats and stays on top.

Objection: R. Simon taught that that is only when the wine filters through by itself, but if the top Kli was shaken, the poison mixes with the wine and goes through! (The same applies if the wine is poured into the strainer.)

Answer: One can put the strainer on the mouth of the barrel and pour it straight through.

Question: The Beraisa permits separating Tamei Peros to be Terumah. It cannot be like R. Nechemyah!

(Beraisa): We may separate Tamei Peros to be Terumah on Tamei Peros, or Tahor Peros to be Terumah on Tahor or Tamei Peros, but not Tamei Peros to be Terumah on Tahor Peros;

R. Nechemyah says, even Tamei Peros on Tamei Peros is permitted only for Demai (doubtfully tithed Peros).

Answer: The Beraisa discusses Demai.

(Beraisa): Regarding oil he may not do so, because this causes a loss to the Kohen.

Question: Presumably, we are concerned because a Kohen can benefit by burning Tamei oil. Also regarding wine, he can sprinkle it!

Suggestion: Sprinkling is insignificant.

Rejection: Shmuel taught, one should pay up to a Sela for a Log of wine to drink, and up to two Sela'im for a Log of wine to sprinkle!

Answer: The case is, it is new wine unfit for sprinkling.

Question: The Kohen can keep it until it is fit!

Answer: We are concerned for a pitfall (lest someone drink it. Tamei Terumah is forbidden to everyone).

Question: Also regarding oil, we should be concerned for a pitfall!

Answer: He can put it in a filthy container, so no one will drink it.

Question: He can do the same with wine!

Answer: If we did, it would not be fit for sprinkling.